Honda Pilot vs. Ford Explorer: All-New 3-Row SUV Takes on a Segment Stalwart

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, sho94_2000 said:

It’s no coincidence that the “fix” for the previous generation Explorers is the exact route Ford went with for the new ones. 
 

I agree that there is some tangible benefits with regards to soot but the main driver (Can’t forget the obvious “in my opinion”) is the CO issue.  
 

The European implementation is not nearly as complicated as Fords solution.  The exhaust dumps behind the bumper out of sight where Ford has a rather complicated tip design.  

 

It's really not that complicated.  The pipe turns down, and has a tip that extends out normally.

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

One of the issues with the Explorer was its on again and off again development process. I believe it was supposed to be out a year earlier then it was and was pushed back/stopped by Fields back in 2018 or so, since we got another minor refresh of the last Gen Explorer 18 months before the new one came out. Seems like one the program was finally greenlited for production, it seems like Ford spent more time/$$$ on the Aviator to get it right (or at least the press isn't raking it through the coals since the last  one stop being built in 2005) before it launched and is now focusing on "fixing" perceived Explorer issues. 

 

The Escape is a different situation-I believe the pricing of the Escape has been a shitshow since it launched in 2013-a fully loaded SEL costing more then a base Ti model, causing the SEL to be dropped a year or two later and then in 2017, an Escape SE model having 90% of the same equipment as 2013 Ti model at a cheaper price point. Then the decontenting of the 2019 MY. The 2020 was a correction of all of that to fix the pricing and profitability of it. 

Mark Fields was replaced in early 2017 and Jim Hackett has been CEO for three years now,

time flys when you're having fun spending billions diverted from current vehicle programs.

 

More than ever, I'm convinced that Ford is now over-throttling vehicle production

by increased prices, less incentives and tougher financing. They're choosing to

higher % returns over optimised revenue/profits.

 

For the last three years, Jim Hackett has set financial goals an profit return that are

just unrealistic considering the way Ford has and still is being driven at the top.

While Ford continues the transition away from car sales, it's clear that it's looking

to replace those sales but not necessarily increase annual US. Sales above 2.6 million.

I think that is the exact reason why Wall Street doesn't believe Jim Hackett will ever

deliver the profits he's promised. Sorry I'm digressing away from the topic..,...

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by jpd80

[akirby]

53 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Mark Fields was replaced in early 2017 and Jim Hackett has been CEO for three years now,

time flys when you're having fun spending billions diverted from current vehicle programs.

 

More than ever, I'm convinced that Ford is now over-throttling vehicle production

by increased prices, less incentives and tougher financing. They're choosing to

higher % returns over optimised revenue/profits.

 

For the last three years, Jim Hackett has set financial goals an profit return that are

just unrealistic considering the way Ford has and still is being driven at the top.

While Ford continues the transition away from car sales, it's clear that it's looking

to replace those sales but not necessarily increase annual US. Sales above 2.6 million.

I think that is the exact reason why Wall Street doesn't believe Jim Hackett will ever

deliver the profits he's promised. Sorry I'm digressing away from the topic..,...

 

 

If Ford did not have the high warranty and launch costs and one time restructuring charges I think the narrative would be far more positive.    They seem to be able to support higher ATPs at lower volume across many models and Mach-E and the Broncos should make that even better.   I don't understand why folks think that the same gross profit over fewer models and lower unit sales is a bad thing - it means you can more easily withstand a downturn or pricing war and you have less overhead.

[jpd80]

25 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

If Ford did not have the high warranty and launch costs and one time restructuring charges I think the narrative would be far more positive.    They seem to be able to support higher ATPs at lower volume across many models and Mach-E and the Broncos should make that even better.   I don't understand why folks think that the same gross profit over fewer models and lower unit sales is a bad thing - it means you can more easily withstand a downturn or pricing war and you have less overhead.

I really understand what Ford is trying to do and up to a point it makes sense but it’s something that must be done judiciously. 
 

The argument is not “the same gross profit over more vehicles”, it’s about throwing away additional profit and revenue in order to seek a defined return - there’s a discreet difference and it occurs when you chose % over max profit balanced against builds/ resources. 

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I really understand what Ford is trying to do and up to a point it makes sense but it’s something that must be done judiciously. 
 

The argument is not “the same gross profit over more vehicles”, it’s about throwing away additional profit and revenue in order to seek a defined return - there’s a discreet difference and it occurs when you chose % over max profit balanced against builds/ resources. 

 

I get it but I think it all goes back to resources and not being able to keep Fusion and Focus in production and updated for North America while developing all the new vehicles and platforms and upgrading factories for C2.

 

IF they had underutilized resources that could be used to develop and sell a new Focus at a 3% margin then I think that's a different proposition and I don't think Ford would walk away from that.   I just don't think they have the resources to do it right now.   Will be a lot easier once the Broncos and MachE and Bronco Sport and the other new vehicles have launched and the factories are converted to C2.

[snooter]

I think ford has a view of there market dynamics that are 180 opposite of reality....we bought ford cars for work...high miles after 4 years and they were beat..but they were cheap enuff we could trade-in for a new model....that is now gone and the competition has gotten so fierce in last 3 years that the lower priced ford suv's simply do not stand-out enuff (i am being kind) from the others that you cannot justify paying for what you end up with...focus was a nice car (decent room, road manners acceptable, high mpg) and with a decent transmission it would have been a great car...ford is chasing a market now that drastically begins to taper off when high msrp's are factored in...to compete they need high class "appearing product" on the lower end and it is simply not there

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by snooter

[jpd80]

36 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

I get it but I think it all goes back to resources and not being able to keep Fusion and Focus in production and updated for North America while developing all the new vehicles and platforms and upgrading factories for C2.

 

IF they had underutilized resources that could be used to develop and sell a new Focus at a 3% margin then I think that's a different proposition and I don't think Ford would walk away from that.   I just don't think they have the resources to do it right now.   Will be a lot easier once the Broncos and MachE and Bronco Sport and the other new vehicles have launched and the factories are converted to C2.

Yes, easy to add product once Mexican products are set but this was always going to be a foul up because of a string of missed opportunities going back to before 2011:

coulda shoulda woulda I know but consider

Ranger at MAP, Focus/Fiesta at Cuautitlan, Taurus/MKS OAC, Flex/ MKT with Explorer at CAP.

 

Sorry digressing here but there was a litany of bad moves leading up to the mess Hackett inherited so it’s not all on him, I do understand that he must first rehabilitate Ford’s  production before rolling out more expansive plans.

Edited February 27, 2020 by jpd80

[CKNSLS]

On 2/26/2020 at 3:46 PM, bzcat said:

If you compare Explorer with Telluride side by side (for example at an auto show), you can definitely see and touch the difference in material grades, especially in the 2nd and 3rd row area.  But compare the new Explorer to the old Explorer, the difference is less noticeable. But the point here is that old Explorer is 8 years old but still has some better-to-the-touch plastic panels and switch gears than the new one. 

 

This doesn't matter that much if you believe Explorer can retain a lot of its former buyers. But it will make conquest sales more difficult. 

 

Explorer vs. Telluride is exactly the same as Escape vs. CX-5... compare to the old Escape, the new one is about the same... some spots have better material, some spot significantly worse. But CX-5 is nice everywhere with soft touch plastic and quality tactile feeling switch gears. If people cross shop at all, they will walk away with the impression that Ford has a value proposition problem. 

 

 

True-but the Telluride has features the Explorer doesn't have at certain model levels. This has been discussed on here before.  I have seen one 2020 Explorer here-compared to at least 50 Tellurides and a handful of the Palisades.  The Koreans do put hard plastics in-where there should be soft touch. So buyers either don't notice or don't care.

[Black Label]

I admit I have not driven the current Explorer. However, I had a Telluride as a rental recently, within the last couple months. My impression coming away from that was that I was not impressed. 

[SoonerLS]

12 hours ago, akirby said:

I’d counter that the previous Explorer already had good conquest sales especially with the Sport model.  So no need to reinvent the wheel completely.  So I would say playing it smart rather than safe.  

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Safe or smart, it was swinging for a base hit instead of a home run. Again, I think it was the right decision, but it was playing defense, IMHO.

[SoonerLS]

14 hours ago, probowler said:

No, I didn't forget about them. I ignored them because they're not global, and can't be imported. Also isn't the Flex already discontinued?

You were talking about not saving money, but you left out two cars that were axed completely. They spent $0 on those two, so they saved a bunch of money there. 

[kyle]

9 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

How dare you?  Didn't you get the message that you're supposed to hate it and that it's absolutely horrible because a magazine or two said so?

This is hardly a conquest buyer to say the least.  He’s already in the Ford family and his last new car was 7 years ago. 
 

I was down by you last week in Jupiter Florida and saw probably 10 Aviators. I can promise you that the vast majority were conquest buyers likely moving over from a 2-3 year old BMW or Audi-based solely on the democratically of the area.  
 

The Explorer will holds it own with their current owners, but I don’t see a Mazda CX-9’buyer, or any other nameplate selecting this product unless it’s an ST. 
 

What is great though is that the Aviator is definitely grabbing conquest sales and shows what is possible if they really go all in. 

[hbalek]

37 minutes ago, kyle said:

This is hardly a conquest buyer to say the least.  He’s already in the Ford family and his last new car was 7 years ago. 
 

I was down by you last week in Jupiter Florida and saw probably 10 Aviators. I can promise you that the vast majority were conquest buyers likely moving over from a 2-3 year old BMW or Audi-based solely on the democratically of the area.  
 

The Explorer will holds it own with their current owners, but I don’t see a Mazda CX-9’buyer, or any other nameplate selecting this product unless it’s an ST. 
 

What is great though is that the Aviator is definitely grabbing conquest sales and shows what is possible if they really go all in. 

I guess conquest is not the right name for me.  I am a convert in that I haven't owned a Ford branded vehicle since 1994 and never owned a truck.  So the existence of the ST version of the Explorer made me reconsider the Ford brand and made me desire an SUV for the first time. I thought I'd always drive Lincolns especially Lincoln sedans. That all changed after seeing the ST for the first time in press photos and then in person at the Detroit Auto Show.  Many of the Platinum and ST buyers are conquests especially from Audi and BMW it seems.  I agree with everyone who says the Aviator is nearly perfect but with the ST and Platinum version of the Explorer you get most of the performance and tech goodies for $20-30K less. So high end Explorers are actually a bargain!

[probowler]

1 hour ago, SoonerLS said:

You were talking about not saving money, but you left out two cars that were axed completely. They spent $0 on those two, so they saved a bunch of money there. 

I also mentioned U.S. testing and certification global Ford vehicles; Discontinued and non-global vehicles are irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that Ford could still import Focus and other passenger cars if they so chose, for a minimal cost. Ford Europe is already paying for them, the investment has already been made, so Ford could take advantage of that. 

[akirby]

48 minutes ago, probowler said:

I also mentioned U.S. testing and certification global Ford vehicles; Discontinued and non-global vehicles are irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that Ford could still import Focus and other passenger cars if they so chose, for a minimal cost. Ford Europe is already paying for them, the investment has already been made, so Ford could take advantage of that. 

They could also throw cash in the river but I wouldn’t recommend it.

 

They were planning to import them originally but couldn’t make the numbers work.  What part of they don’t make any money is so hard to understand?

[silvrsvt]

Just some causal observations about the new Explorer-

 

in the past two months or so, the amount of Explorers have exploded in the area I live-they've always been a popular vehicle in my area. 

 

I haven't notice that much in the way of Telurides or Pallisades in my area-I think part of the reason why some people might think they sell better then they do is that they are new the market and the styling is distinctive at first, but now (to me at least) they are blending into the background with everything else. The Pallisade is kinda ugly IMO and I prefer the Teluride, but the front end can look odd in some angles. 

[silvrsvt]

Just some causal observations about the new Explorer-

 

in the past two months or so, the amount of Explorers have exploded in the area I live-they've always been a popular vehicle in my area. 

 

I haven't notice that much in the way of Telurides or Pallisades in my area-I think part of the reason why some people might think they sell better then they do is that they are new the market and the styling is distinctive at first, but now (to me at least) they are blending into the background with everything else. The Pallisade is kinda ugly IMO and I prefer the Teluride, but the front end can look odd in some angles. 

[Trailhiker]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

Just some causal observations about the new Explorer-

 

in the past two months or so, the amount of Explorers have exploded in the area I live-they've always been a popular vehicle in my area. 

 

I haven't notice that much in the way of Telurides or Pallisades in my area-I think part of the reason why some people might think they sell better then they do is that they are new the market and the styling is distinctive at first, but now (to me at least) they are blending into the background with everything else. The Pallisade is kinda ugly IMO and I prefer the Teluride, but the front end can look odd in some angles. 

I have seen a couple of Telurides and Pallisades, but not as many as you would think, living very close to Kia and Hyundai dealers. The closest Ford dealer is 5 miles or more away(but that's a rant for another day).

The exterior styling of either the Kia or Hyundai is a mixed bag, but nothing special. I think it is the vehicle price and the layout and percieved quality of the interior that makes the sale.

I think the 2020 Explorer hit the perfect storm when it arrived. The Korean twins came out around the same time, and they were getting rave reviews for their value. Meanwhile, Ford's Chicago plant was having build issues, and the choice and design of materials made it more difficult to assemble without panel gaps and alignment issues. Once it was known the Explorer was having issues, the media and the internet inspected things even more thoroughly, and it takes a while for things to get back on the right track, and that seems to be happening now. The Explorer is a great vehicle, and for the most part it looks good. I do have issues with the front end and interior dash designs, but the rest looks fine. I blame the styling issues on the introduction of the Aviator. They hit a homerun stylewise, and I'll bet they told the Explorer design team that they wanted Explorer to look nothing like it so the press would not compare the two so closely. Well, they got what they wanted, and I think the interior and the front of the Explorer took the brunt of that burden.

[BoomerSooner]

So, I'm actually in the market and the basic concept of the Explorer works for me.  But, after taking a look, I think I'm going to have to pass.  It's very expensive relative to other choices and, unless you option the dickens out of it, that interior is as dull as dishwater.  Worse, there's no amount of optioning you can do to fix the front grille and blocky butt without waiting for a significant MCE. And, while I know there are other powertrain options, you have to spend some serious dough to escape the little four cylinder versus 2 tons of mass.  10 cogs or no, that's asking a lot from 2.3 liters. Test results (for instance, comparing the hoary old Honda Pilot) show the Ecoboost appears to do neither particularly well: not too Eco and not too Boosty.  What a splendid missed opportunity to just make the 2.7/10-speed available as an XLT option.  

[rmc523]

18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Yes, easy to add product once Mexican products are set but this was always going to be a foul up because of a string of missed opportunities going back to before 2011:

coulda shoulda woulda I know but consider

Ranger at MAP, Focus/Fiesta at Cuautitlan, Taurus/MKS OAC, Flex/ MKT with Explorer at CAP.

 

Sorry digressing here but there was a litany of bad moves leading up to the mess Hackett inherited so it’s not all on him, I do understand that he must first rehabilitate Ford’s  production before rolling out more expansive plans.

 

Where would Fusion have gone?

[jpd80]

Hermosillo and then Flat Rock, they spent $550 million there in 2013 on a fully flex body shop and paint plant only to pull production in 2016.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Where would Fusion have gone?

 

Hermosillo which wasn't on the list.

[jpd80]

Hackett’s mission today is to get products made in the right plants and by doing that, he actually corrects a lot of missteps.

As a Kirby has reminded us many times, there’s opportunity for Ford  to add more products there after the main products are rolled out

Edited February 28, 2020 by jpd80

[bzcat]

23 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Mark Fields was replaced in early 2017 and Jim Hackett has been CEO for three years now,

time flys when you're having fun spending billions diverted from current vehicle programs.

 

More than ever, I'm convinced that Ford is now over-throttling vehicle production

by increased prices, less incentives and tougher financing. They're choosing to

higher % returns over optimised revenue/profits.

 

For the last three years, Jim Hackett has set financial goals an profit return that are

just unrealistic considering the way Ford has and still is being driven at the top.

While Ford continues the transition away from car sales, it's clear that it's looking

to replace those sales but not necessarily increase annual US. Sales above 2.6 million.

I think that is the exact reason why Wall Street doesn't believe Jim Hackett will ever

deliver the profits he's promised. Sorry I'm digressing away from the topic..,...

 

 

Toyota is on pace to pass Ford as #2 in the US market this year. Shrinking volume hasn't delivered the profits either. The bottom line is Ford has high fixed costs (relatively speaking) so trading volume for margin has a diminishing return curve. At some point, Ford is gonna have to actually sell more vehicles to increase profit. 

[akirby]

7 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Hackett’s mission today is to get products made in the right plants and by doing that, he actually corrects a lot of missteps.

As a Kirby has reminded us many times, there’s opportunity for Ford  to add more products there after the main products are rolled out

 

Think how much easier it will be to retool the Mexico plants for C2 and launch the new vehicles without existing production in the way.